On Jealousy

Jealousy is a normal emotion with which a person can have a healthy relationship.  Feeling jealousy is usually a sign of something bigger going on, primarily one's current situation and place in it.  It's extremely important to communicate about jealousy in any relationship, and gets even more important in polyamorous relationships.

Most often, jealousy is a prominent aspect of the fear of abandonment.  So long as jealousy is kept in check and doesn't explode, this fear can be alleviated through reassurance from one's partner.  Dismissal, invalidation, and neglect all exacerbate jealousy as they reinforce the fear of abandonment.
Sometimes feeling jealousy is brought about due to the partner's behavior.  Communicating jealousy should include learning how each person wants to be reassured - this would best be done as part of the polyamory discussion (negotiating time and safety and boundaries, etc.) but may change as time goes on.  For some people, simply having sex more often is enough reassurance; for others, it works to have a date together for each date a partner has with other people.  And if you can't specifically name what would be reassuring for yourself, it's ok!  Experiment!  Eliminate what wouldn't work!  It's a process, like all aspects of relationships.  When one's partner isn't willing to work together or insists on using only their own reassurance method, there are more issues in addition to the fear of abandonment.

And sometimes feeling jealousy is brought about due to an individual's emotional state.  Many people feel the fear of abandonment at different times in our lives for many different reasons, regardless of the current relationship(s).  An unhealthy relationship can certainly worsen that fear and sometimes a very healthy, involved relationship can alleviate an individual's fear - I recommend against using relationships for that, though.  Overcoming one's own fear, especially when it's been validated in the past, is very difficult and scars can so easily be re-opened.  Small steps, self-care, distance from incompatible/disrespectful people, and intrapersonal communication help one overcome that fear and heal from whatever has brought it about.

And sometimes jealousy has nothing to do with fear, it's envy of another person's situation and that's it.  When one's partner is out of town and having fun for example, it's entirely possible to feel jealous without fear or resentment - this is neither unhealthy nor healthy, it just is.  It's possible to feel both happy for one's partner (and the people they see), jealous of them, and have fun on your own all at at the same time.  Usually treating oneself to something special can eliminate this envy, or at least push it to the background until the situation changes.

Above all, learning to listen to one's emotions, figuring out where they come from and what they're telling you, and handling them them in a healthy way (working out at the gym, partying, cuddling with kitties, crying over a pint of ice cream, whatever) are vital to functioning as both and individual and a partner.  We all mess up sometimes, learn and apologize and move on.

Is it Misogyny?

Sometimes, I encounter an arrogant asshole and I can't tell whether he's treating me like shit because he just doesn't like me* or because he perceives me as a woman. And when he tells me "you don't even have to say anything for me to know that you're wrong," it doesn't really matter why he's being a jerk anymore.

I was recently told that I must be a good person because his friend is dating me.
excuse me?
Gee, thanks for acknowledging me...oh no wait, you didn't. This could be any person hand-in-hand with the prick's friend. The space I fill is not who I am.






* arrogant assholes tend to dislike me since I ask them penetrating questions about their blatant insecurity, but so innocently that they can't legitimately get mad

Opposites Attract?

How cliché, "opposites attract." What do they do after they've attracted each other?


All the time at work, at O'HARE AIRPORT (so I have a pretty good sampling), miserable couples meander by. The women who just walked out of Better Homes knowingly empty their minds over celeb rags, the burly macho men soak up business books...and then pay for their wives' magazines. Sometimes, men will enjoy conversations with me about westerns, history and/or sci-fi - masculine genres. Their wives/girlfriends envy me for not only getting along with their men, but also for having the knowledge they don't*.


Aside from their decisions to fit traditional roles, these men and these women are utter opposites. They aren't genuinely attracted to each other because they actively hide who they are!! And they don't get along precisely because they're opposites, they don't relate to each other. The same fights over and over again: "don't go back to the bathroom, you'll spend another 20 minutes on your hair;" "you never hear anything I say, you're only interested in your fantasy football." Opposite interests, repulsion rather than attraction. These couples rarely share similar projects...they're each other's projects!!

Speaking for myself, I'm generally attracted to people to whom I can relate. I'm androgynous/masculine, and I'm attracted to people who have similar qualities (high femmes can have very big balls/ovaries). As a feminist, a sci-fi nerd, an artist with high appreciation for science, a cuddler, etc. I'm attracted to people who share these qualities.

It makes more sense to me to tackle projects with someone similar than to tackle someone who's my opposite. And much more arousing.





* it is possible, yes, that these women just genuinely aren't interested in those genres. I've been told or overheard too many women say "I wish I could enjoy math/science/sci-fi/history/technology/etc. more, but it scares boys away."

"Look Both Ways" by Jennifer Baumgardner

You may recognize Jennifer Baumgardner, the co-author of "Manifesta." "Manifesta" was great, a basic and in-depth feminist, well, manifesta for young women of the early 00's. I highly recommend it as a primer.

And then "Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics" by Jennifer Baumgardner caught my eye at the library. http://www.amazon.com/Look-Both-Ways-Bisexual-Politics/dp/0374531080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314628877&sr=8-1

I've noticed that the vast majority of nonfiction I read can be divided into two categories: purely objective information and subjective semi-autobiography. Sadly, these two writing styles can be divided between the sexes. Women authors almost always include personal anecdotes and opinions in their nonfiction, while men are more likely to just write the evidence and analysis. "Look Both Ways" really takes the cake - Baumgardner appears to have interviewed only women akin to her class, background, profession, gender expression and urban location. Their stories intermingle with her own - this is not hard journalism, this is a blog. Which is fine! But don't write a 227 page blog of one's opinions and pass it off as "women's studies"!

And then there are all the issues in the book itself. At first, I schlepped through this book to find a few gems of actual information; about halfway through, it became a page-turning hurricane of shock. Many of the "drawbacks" of bisexuality she describes can be remedied by having a spine. A brain wouldn't hurt either.

On page 32, Baumgardner explains her relationship with a man, Steven, and cheating on him with a woman, Amy. She states in very clear terms that her relationship with Steven was just what she always wanted because of her relationship with Amy. By stretching her relationship wants and needs across two people, she was better able to appreciate them both. So what does she do? Dumps Steven! And here I'm stomping on the book, screaming "try polyamory, stupid! POLYAMORY!" Alas, the option of non-monogamy isn't mentioned at all in the entire book.

Page 141: "Women are entering into relationships with men with gay expectations, but they don't know how to actualize those expectations or, sometimes, even acknowledge them. It's part of the paradox of feminism, of feminism's unfinished revolution: women expect equality from their relationships, but not from men." If a woman is in a relationship with a man and she doesn't communicate her expectations she bears the responsibility of her disappointment. And expecting equality in relationships but not from men? Is Baumgardner writing about thinking adults here? She seems to have a pretty low opinion on men in general, but this makes women look contradictory and weak as well.

Page 143, Baumgardner writes about the appeal of a bisexual/lesbian girlfriend to men. The first reason for this, apparently, queer (a term mentioned once in the book) women lack the neediness of straight women. The author herself proved that false: she was very needy in her relationships. The second reason is that a man, who's CLEARLY commitment-phobic, knows that he won't have to commit to a queer woman. This is just insulting to everyone. And the final reason is that queer women tend to be more independent - actually, I really have no argument here. You've read my blog, this isn't news.

Those are all the specific snippets I have lined up. Overall, "Look Both Ways" is insulting. It insults men by calling them inherently misogynistic, emotionally dense, commitment-phobic and insecure. It insults women by calling them needily dependent, always looking for "The One", childlike, and stupid enough to date one of those Neanderthal men while expecting something more syrupy. To be sure, PLENTY of people who fulfill these stereotypes exist - these Breeders (not a sexuality-specific term) are the bane of my existence. Beaumgardner's worldview is so small that these may very well be the only gender roles she knows. How a 40something, bisexual, feminist journalist in NYC could emulate Carrie Bradshaw so well is beyond me.

And it's additionally insulting to pick up a book bearing the subtitle "Bisexual Politics" and to discover "My Repeated Bisexual Mistakes." The one real drawback to bisexuality mentioned in this book is that one's sexuality is perceived as reliant on one's partner. "Oh you're straight now" when dating a man, "oh you're a lesbian now" when dating a woman. So many people don't see bisexuality as a real sexual orientation because their own minds change it based on changing partners. Baumgardner explains this problem...and then implies that the bisexual person feels some kind of guilt?!?!? Guilt for other people's inability to conceptualize fluidity?!? Guilt for not living up to some bisexual role, which apparently doesn't exist because Baumgardner isn't aware of polyamory?!?

Decreasing Marriage Rates in Asia

According to an article in The Economist, marriage rates in Asia are decreasing dramatically - partl because there are just more men (by 2050, there will be 60m more men of marriageable age than women) and partly because it is more advantageous for women to remain single. Education, business, health care and urbanization all improve the lives of single women, while the lives of marriage women stay the same in traditionally family-oriented cultures.

In Asian cultures, women with the least education are more likely to marry. In the West, however, women with degrees are more likely to marry. I theorize that this is because of a woman's role in a poor family. Among poor Asians, a daughter is another mouth to feed: send her away to take care of her (potentially wealthier) in-laws. Among poor Westerners, a daughter is another contributer to her family's funds: why send her away to fund another family?

Also, cohabitation rates have risen in the West while marriage has fallen. This reflects on the poor image we have of marriage: it's expensive to begin and to end (and there's a 50% chance it'll end). The habits of cohabitating couples aren't different from those of married couples. In Asia, though, the extremely low rate of cohabitation hasn't changed. The low rate of marrying women doesn't reflect on marriage, but on a traditional woman's role when she isn't single. They don't want their mothers' lives: they don't want to take care of anyone other than themselves.

Ther are also far fewer options in Asia for working mothers than in the West.

Come the 2050 sex divide, perhaps there will be an influx in clergy. People have used religious vocation to solve social/economic problems before. This article suggests that the 60m unmarriable men will topple the concept of universal marriage. I wonder if an honorable role for these men will be formed - clergy has been the common way to do that in previous times.